CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
136. The Conditional Loan of a Torah
QUESTION: The Nassau Community Temple possesses a Torah which was given or lent to a congregation in Connecticut. Subsequently the family agreed to lend this Torah to Temple Judea, the congregation to which their children belonged, on condition that the Torah follow the children if they disaffiliated. There is no documentation of the terms of this loan. Eventually Temple Judea merged with the Nassau Community Temple and the family left the congregation. They wished to retrieve the Torah at that point but as a dedication ceremony had already been scheduled they were willing to participate in that ceremony which took place a decade and a half ago. Now the family has once more pressed its claims for the Torah which they wish to place with their present congregation in Lynbrook. In return for this they are willing to make a substantial gift to the Nassau Community Temple. They now claim some documentation of the original transaction in the form of a letter from an individual who was present during the conversations with the rabbi of Temple Judea two decades ago. The Torah in question has been in continual use by Nassau Community Temple. What disposition should be made? (Rabbi Linda Henry Goodman, West Hempstead NY)ANSWER: Various issues connected with this problem have been fully discussed precisely as you indicated in your letter by Solomon B. Freehof (Contemporary Reform Responsa #22). He concluded (1973) that the Torah belonged to the congregation which now held it even though it became part of that congregation through a merger. The transfer by the officers of the original congregation was appropriate and can not be questioned now. We are concerned about the terms of the “loan” which were not entirely clear then, nor has the new evidence brought absolutely certainty to this matter. The only new factor is the letter of an individual who was present at the initial conversation. She testified to the fact that this was a loan which would continue only as long as the children were members of the congregation. We, of course, honor this testimony and have high regard for the individual involved. It, however, does not answer all the questions which might be raised about this issue. Tradition and Reform would follow the responsum of Joseph Colon (Responsa Mahariq #159). He indicated that unless the custom of lending a Torah, while maintaining permanent family possessions, was widespread the claim of ownership by the congregation should be followed. In another responsum (#70) he decided in favor of the individual who claimed ownership as the custom of that community was that of an individual lending the Torah to a synagogue. That, however, is not our custom in North America; the vast majority of synagogues own their Torahs as gifts. As the Torah has been in continual use by the congregation for two decades and as the claims of the family remain somewhat in doubt despite the attestation of a new witness. In other words, we do not really know whether the father intended to place long term conditions upon the use of the Torah, especially as the congregation (Temple Judea) to which it was lent was new and was being served by a student rabbi. As its future was in doubt the condition he may have imposed would have been understandable. The removal of the Torah in those early years particularly during the lifetime of the individual, who provided it, would have been permissible, but now two decades later when all of the matters involved are somewhat beclouded it should not occur and we agree with the decision of Solomon B. Freehof. Let me suggest another solution which may avoid intercongregational conflict and help the family in question. The two congregations could simply exchange one Torah for another. In other words the congregation to which the family now belongs may wish quietly to provide the Nassau Jewish Community Center with a Torah in an unannounced exchange for the disputed Torah. That might satisfy everyone’s honor and avoid further conflict. As indicated in Solomon B. Freehofs’ responsum such a movement of a Torah from one congregation to another in accordance with the wishes of the congregations or their officers would be perfectly permissible. An alternative solution to the problem might be binding arbitration through a bet din which could be convoked to look into this entire matter. Before, however, moving in that direction we should ask ourselves whether it is really worthwhile, a decade and a half later, to continue a quarrel about the ownership of a Torah. Surely there must be enough good will on both sides to either exchange Torahs as suggested above or to simply conclude the issue.April 1988
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.